Talk:Bleach (manga)

This is a summary of our archived standardization topics for the Bleach (manga) article, originated by tjstrf and with additional compilation from Dekimasu. Although consensus can change, please consider these points when adding information to Bleach-related articles. In titling, we use Bleach (manga), not Bleach (series), Bleach (anime) or BLEACH. We are using the English naming conventions for characters (given name first). Quincy, Bount and Soul Society are capitalized, but we do not capitalize most other terms (hollow, plus, zanpakutō, etc.). It's lieutenant, not vice-captain; the onmitsukidō is to be referred to as "special forces"; demon arts has been superseded by kidō, since all versions of the series use the Japanese term; Soul Reaper is preferred to shinigami. The main characters on the page are listed in the order of their appearance. Correct character spellings include Bount (pl. Bounts), Yammy, Luppi, and Kuroud. We refer to "artificial souls" rather than "modified souls" in order to incorporate all manufactured souls.

Bon-what??

As someone who stumbled into Bleach (on Cartoon Network) mid-way, I would really like to know more about the levels of technique, whether or not the jutsu's, bonkai's, etc. are terms specific to this series and fictitious or if they have literal translations and spur from specific martial arts. I find the samurai mythology embedded in the series fascinating, but I don't know enough about it to make any assumptions.70.245.160.254 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)newfan

See the articles on the various races as well as the Zanpakutō and Kidō articles - that should help with some stuff. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To partially answer your question, most of them are terms specific to the series, which makes it harder to discuss them here using reliable sources. We generally try to limit ourselves to reporting facts (or report on the fact that someone has a certain published opinion). Dekimasuよ! 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bankai and senkai are just japanese. kai meaning form, ban - final, bankai - final form Diablo11d (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This might be a better question to ask on a Bleach forum, as this talk page exists to discuss the article, not elements of the series itself. 71.234.99.64 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bankai (卍解, final release), as seen under bankai. For technique and weapon lists, look to Wikia:Bleach. –Gunslinger47 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami

Per the MOS we should label names according to the dubs and translated manga. Therefore we should refer to Shinigami in Bleach as "Soul Reapers" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things says we should use the more common name, right? So which MOS page says we should use the official translation? I'm not trying to start an arguement or anything, I just get lost with all the MOS pages and am trying to get things straight. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. The official English-language adaptations are the best choices according to WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. I support a move per the MoS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem: Using one translated term while every other term is left in its original Japanese (or Spanish) will leave us with an inconsistent standard for terminology. Decisions have been made on this same basis for both the Naruto and One Piece series when it came to their terminology in the past.

Because the Bleach series is only partially translated into English, it is not possible to use the official translations consistently (and we'd be faced with an anime or manga decision on some translations anyway), so we have the options of using the original Japanese (shinigami, bankai, kido...), using literal English translations (god of death, final release, demon arts...), or a messy and inconsistent usage (soul reaper, bankai, demon arts...).

In the end, I believe it's more professional to be consistent within articles, and use shinigami. --erachima talk 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "partially translated" - Is there a certain Bleach medium that is not translated? Or is it that not all of the series is finished? The difference with One Piece is that the different licensors (in the USA and Southeast Asia) use different names so there it would make sense to go by Japanese names. AFAIK VIZ is the only English-language company associated with Bleach. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no official English-language media which uses "shinigami" (of course, I'm discounting all illegal fan translations). WhisperToMe's proposal makes absolute sense, per logic and the MoS, and I think we should get the page moved. If this is done, I'll get to the redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper is what is used by Viz in the English adaptation of the manga and in the dub track and subtitles of the anime. Soul Reaper is what we should be using throughout the Bleach articles. If Viz chooses to retain the original Japanese for bankai, that is their choice and one we will follow. It isn't the first time its been done and its doubtful it will be the last. Collectonian (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But do you agree that Shinigami (Bleach) should be moved to Soul Reapers? I don't think etymology has a role in this one, as erachima hinted, especially because policy requires that we use common names. Am I right or am I wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Soul Reaper (Bleach) (singular). I don't think its inconsistent as it is what Viz chose to do themselves. Collectonian (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with moving to Soul Reaper (Bleach), as well as switching out shinigami to soul reapers in all the text to be consistent. I've always been somewhat confuddled with why the articles kept using the term shinigami instead of soul reaper since the latter is the standard in the Bleach english translation, in addition to me being more familiar around with in regards to the Bleach series. Fox816 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reapers should redirect to Soul Reaper (Bleach), and the article should be "Soul Reaper (Bleach)" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and move the page Whisper. I'll help with the redirects and link fixes ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't matter what I think but I think it should stay as Shinigami. Of course my only reason is (in following the Use Common Names thing) NOBODY I know has ever called Shinigami "Soul Reapers", in fact in english they just called them "Death Gods". But meh.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a link to Soul Reapers, I don't think a redirect is needed. If one is added, however, make sure to put in a redirect disambig link for the group Soulreaper. Collectonian (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a hatnote? I got it ready, but where'd WhisperToMe go? Thought he'd get the move done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Move done :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit after the fact now, but what I meant by partially translated is that the series is further in Japan than Viz is. This probably won't cause any problems in the case of replacing shinigami, but if you were to, say, start renaming all the kido techniques from Japanese to English, it would get messy, since Viz names only exist for the ones that they've published. --erachima talk 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be renaming anything from Japanese to English until the Viz release was available and the terms being used decided. Collectonian (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean until the entire series was available, that wouldn't fix the inconsistency problem. --erachima talk 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The partially translated thing is true of all ongoing series; we could use the translated English names that are available and Japanese attack names if the translated English names are not available... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be Shinigami, as it is used commonly and it's what we've been using for ages. It's really pointless now that we've changed it now...I mean c'mon! Other manga use the term Shinigami and leave it untranslated....Seriously, I don't like how this page is going..first with the media list, and now this name change...RedEyesMetal (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Those manga", are illegal fansubs.Tintor2 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legality of translations has nothing to do with the issue of which term is more used by English speakers. However, since the usage in the fanbase is split and the usage in official materials is solidly on one side, I'm not going to argue the point. --erachima talk 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be used as Tite kubo intended it, not Viz? I know the whole debate about common usage but still, using Soul Reaper isn't correct according to the manga, which was decided to be this pages name instead of Bleach(anime). a subnote can always be left showing that both usages are correct if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo11d (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Shinigami is the much more prevalent usage. 2 million vs. 135,000. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd call a tanuki a tanuki no matter how vehemently a dubbing company called it a raccoon. On the same sort of logic, I'd support calling a shinigami a shinigami. Note that the term has its own English Wikipedia entry. The term is used across many different types of Japanese media and not using it would weaken these encyclopedic connections. –Gunslinger47 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all do realize that the change has already been completed, right? It is in keeping with our MoS and Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. It does not weaken the connections as the actual Soul Reaper article notes it is Bleach's form of a shinigami. It isn't an issue of a "dubbing company" along calling it a raccoon. Soul Reaper is used in the dub, in the subtitles, and in the manga. It isn't the same as someone like 4Kids intentionally Americanizing it. It is Viz's choice to use Soul Reaper in Bleach, just as they retained Shinigami in Full Moon o Sagashite. We follow suit. Collectonian (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the convention was to use the term that people use the most. Isn't this: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." what we should be following? I'm not super up to date on all NCs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We use the Anime and manga MoS naming conventions "Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Soul Reapers is what is used in all English versions, so it is why it was chosen for use here. Collectonian (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Y'all do realize that the change has already been completed, right?"

Yes, but discussion doesn't have to stop just because a momentary consensus has been reached. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Anyway, this has been discussed several times in the past on this talk page. A while back I noted that the change to "Soul Reaper" was inevitable, so I'm resigned to the change. However, despite consensus and despite the Manual of Style (which is just a guideline reflecting consensus), I can still state my preference to the contrary. :) –Gunslinger47 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly IP address, but I'd like to point out that Kubo used the term "Soul Reaper" in the Bleach art book "All Colour But The Black" - the art book has some of Ichigo's traits listed in plain English, and for occupation it clearly says "Soul Reaper". Clearly this is not just some term Viz made up, since Kubo is using it too. --70.249.240.129 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is, in fact, correct. While Kubo has obviously named them shinigami he himself translates their occupation as Soul Reaper. For this reason I have to agree with the change.

However, I personally prefer shinigami; I'm more used to it, it sounds better to me (soul reaper makes them seem different somehow; idk), and I usually (note; usually) prefer using Japanese terminology when referring to Japanese things. But again, that is just my preference; just because I will write things as shinigami doesn't make the change wrong; and of course if I ever edit something within the Bleach pages I will use Soul Reaper.

Anyway, Mr. IP adress, my point was that you are correct. Kyouraku-taichou (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm stuck in my ways because I knew what shinigami were before I started watching Bleach. Guidelines do clearly suggest we use Soul Reaper, however, and scanlation readers are now starting to get outnumbered. –Gunslinger47 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May someone please mention exactly which guidelines favor "Soul Reaper" over "Shinigami"? I happen to think that Shinigami is obviously a much better choice, among other reasons because it is very much a series-specific concept ("Bleach" Shinigami have barely any resemblance at all to Shinigami/Reapers of other works of fiction). Yes, Kubo translated it into "Soul Reaper", but I don't think that changes much; just because he used an approximate translation at one point it does not mean that the translation is better than the real thing. I have a hard time even guessing a reason to use "Soul Reaper" over "Shinigami". More so in a series that makes liberal use of intentional barbarisms such as "Hueco Mundo". Unneeded translations are just dead weight. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's the matter of supporting Viz' choices because they are the only english-language licensor so far, I don't think that changes much either. Translations are, after all, just translations - attempts at reproducing an original idea or concept - and (unless there is some sort of official statement from Kubo) are not themselves any sort of canon; is not at all unconceivable that Bleach could eventually be re-released in English language with new translations, after all, but that is hardly any reason in itself to rewrite the articles. There is a clear and definite term for the concept, and it can easily be used in this Wikipedia. That term is Shinigami. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are already links above, but to reiterate: WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation and WP:NAME. All official English translations use "Soul Reaper" not Shinigami. Kubo, the author of the work, also uses Soul Reaper. This is obviously an intentional translation for Viz, which keeps "shinigami" as "shinigami" in other works, such as Full Moon o Sagashite. Whether some people agree or disagree with them translating it in Bleach, that they have chosen to do so makes Soul Reaper the official English name of the "species" for this series, and the one we will use. It is highly unlikely the series would be re-released in English, but if it is and the term is retranslated, it wouldn't matter. First English version of the primary work, and the one most responsible for introducing the work to the English speaking word (Viz's), would be the one we would use to determine the terms to use. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 11:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami should be used as the mangaka intended, not Viz Media. Tite Kubo did use Soul Reaper in the artbook All Colour But The Black, aside from that there are no other references provided. One use of the term "Soul Reaper" is insufficient reasoning. The point that Viz Media uses "Soul Reaper" in Bleach, and "Shinigami" in Full Moon o Sagashite, could be due to the fact that it started releasing Bleach over 13 months prior to Full Moon o Sagashite. "Soul Reaper" as opposed to "Shinigami" might have seemed to be the better alternative at first, then in time preferring the latter of terms, Viz Media chose to keep "Shinigami" as it was intended in Full Moon o Sagashite. For that possibility, comparing the translation of the terms in two different mangas released in North America from the same company simply because it is their "choice" is irrelevant. From the reiterated guidelines above, i have highlighted from quotes: WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation - "Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." WP:NAME - "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." - "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I also quote Luis Dantas for presenting a very good point. "I happen to think that Shinigami is obviously a much better choice, among other reasons because it is very much a series-specific concept ("Bleach" Shinigami have barely any resemblance at all to Shinigami/Reapers of other works of fiction)." --ShadowCrew (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agin, per the guidelines, we will continue using Soul Reaper and Soul REaper alone. It is the official English name of the group. Period. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, per the guidelines, I reiterate "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors." --ShadowCrew (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All English language versions use "Soul Reaper" so your argument supports keeping it as is. Also, the MoS is being updated to make it clearer that the official English name should be used, period. Its been the consensus for a long time, but we do realize the MoS doesn't make it as clear as it could. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The most common name an English speaker is ever going to see is "Soul Reaper". You're assuming all English readers of the manga read fansubs or know the original Japanese version. They don't. "Soul Reaper" is the most visible version available to an English speaker and it's the one we're going to use. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. Bleach _is_ a Japanese manga, after all; by its very nature it does bring a few specific terms with it. Viz has the publishing license for the English language, but that hardly gives it the power to overrule Tite Kubo or the source material itself. There is, by definition, NO official English term for Shinigami (be it Bleach's variety or any other); folklore Shinigami are an adaptation of the European Grim Reaper, but not quite the same (and, in fact, not well defined at all), while Bleach's variety is quite unique to the manga itself. Besides, in Bleach (as in most manga) readers that have anything more than the slightest of interests in the story will indeed read fansubs and/or the source material; that is to be expected and in some cases needed for fully understanding the manga. Shinigami is far more visible than Soul Reaper, because the first is the romanji for the ideograms that are actually used in the manga, and the wording that was indeed used while the english language fanbase was established, while "Soul Reaper" is an adaptation from "Grim Reaper" that is both unneeded and misleading. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed watch fansubs of the first 40 episodes or so, and they used "Shinigami". However, the MoS still says to use the most commonly used English name, which is indeed "Soul Reaper". I'm sure that the only reason that it is Soul Reaper is because Viz decided to use it instead, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the most commonly used English name. Tite Kubo can complain if he wants, but he probably thought it was a good idea. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the arguments for using "Shinigami" in leu of "Soul Reaper" have already been made at least twice, and all of them have been shot down even more times. You can all argue against it till you're blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the official English adaptations of both the manga *and* the anime use "Soul Reaper", Kubo himself has used "Soul Reaper", and the MoS tells us, therefore, that "Soul Reaper" will be used. Fansubs are not, never have been, and never will be, acceptable sources for determining these types of issues. —Dinoguy1000 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that they create the relevancy of the subject to start with? Sorry, that's simply a bit silly to say. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vital info missing!

Why is it called Bleach? Even if the answer is not clear, there should be a sub-section discussing precisely this (that it's unclear), and mentioning some possibilities. If this isn't important info to mention in the article, then I don't know what is. Kreachure (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture or guess work, nor do we fill up an article with "we don't know". Unless the author has specifically noted why he called it Bleach, there is no place for such content (and if he ever does reveal why, then it would go in the production section, not its own section). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose, we could mention it in "Production" section (to clear the subject). --deerstop (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer this correctly I can't say 100%, but in a Shonen Jump interview from when the manga first debuted over in th US the very same question is asked and Tite Kubo responds with "Bleach" being the title of a song By Nirvana perhaps, though I'm not entirely sure my memories gone a bit fuzzy on the topic. i Offer this tidbit not as an absolute, but as an answer to give piece of mind to Kreachure, who really shouldn't worry for this is why Vandal Buster ONyx is ON the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoonyxalchemist (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source and it can be included. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm back and after looking for a moment I found the answer of the title with source. The actual answer is: Bleach can mean both Ichigo's bleached hair as well as the shinigami's job of "bleaching" the sins of the Hollows and sending them to Soul Society. And there U Go! (That's My Source) --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A forum posting is NOT a reliable source, and certainly not one from a fansub group. Your link here has been removed per WP:COPYRIGHT and the false information removed from the article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of bleach is very important and reliable information. The question is often asked "Why is it called bleach?" I answered the question after searching for over two days for a resonable explanation. I found it, why does it keep getting removed? This is the second time it's been removed. Why, so mostly my main concern is the headline. Please answer whoever keeps doing this. Happy editing --Neoonyxalchemist (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You could try reading the message right above as it explains why it was removed both times...as do the edit summaries of the removals...to reiterate, though, you linked to a copyright violating fansite, and a forum posting of some fan's theory is not a valid reliable source. It is false/incorrect/unverifiable information that doesn't belong. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And besides, Ichigo's hair isn't bleached, he's a natural carrot-top, so that's half of the explanation gone right there. —Dinoguy1000 16:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

haha if you type in google "why did tite kubo name it bleach?" your two day search comes down two a .87 second ping. The real reason Bleach is named Bleach has two options: It has no reason (like frisky dingo) or it has not been revealed yet. Being so far in the series and not knowing what it is, im going with the former option. After we meet one more character( possibly the last new character) then i believe we will know.Diablo11d (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening/Ending Themes

This article needs a table or something with the opening ending themes for each season. --SKiPMacD (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme songs are covered in the episode list per our MoS. We don't do tables of themes in the main articles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposals

I've tagged a few Bleach articles for possible merging here. I've listed each separately below so they can be discussed individually. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion

Proposed for merge to the "Movies" section. The film article is little more than a stub, and the film itself is not significantly different from the main series. I don't see why it can't be covered properly in the main article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening 4th would make the film notable on it's own. And I don't think that merging this into the main article is beneficial nor is there a point in doing it. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is mergism without attention. The movie is without a doubt notable enough for its own page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Gotta love all the "good faith" going around. I considered each carefully when contemplating the suggestion. The article is a stub, and it does not show any notability nor significant difference from the series for having its own article. There seems to be little to say about it that would not repeat the series info beyond its plot summary and reception info. That can be covered here just as well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though everybody is suppose to "assume good faith", when someone is passionate about the work they put into an article, and then see it significantly reduced via majority, it's hard not to take it personally. Now, getting back onto subject, while I don't feel that this page should be merged, I agree with [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) for now. I believe that there is enough notability to expand this article, however there isn't enough exposure outside of Japan for anybody to write anything on it. For example, I know the main characters, plot summary and that it has been release in theaters in Japan but that is it. So until the world outside of Japan gets more information, I have to agree with [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]). Maybe there are people who have actually seen the movie. If there are, please help by contributing to the article so it doesn have to be merges. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose; wide-release films are independently notable. Merge IFF we are also going to merge the Lord of the Rings movies into the articles for the books. 17.255.252.10 (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Two very different media and a hideous comparision, nor was it a "wide release" of anywhere near the same level. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bleach: Memories of Nobody

Proposed for merge to the "Movies" section. The film article is pretty much nothing but a huge plot summary. The film itself is not significantly different from the main series, having the same characters, story flow, etc. Again, I don't see why it can't be covered properly in the main article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't think that merging this into the main article is good for the main article. It will only result in bloat. The movie section provides a nice summary of all of the movies while individual articles covering the movies in more detail, per WP:SPINOUT. --Farix (Talk) 17:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Same as previous. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Same for me Neovu79 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't the article just be edited? Why merge? "Not significantly different from the main series" isn't really a reason that it shouldn't exist. Otherwise The Simpsons Movie and Sex and the City: The Movie should also be merged into their respective series because the exact same argument could be made there. --Smashville^BONK! 14:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it is. Please see the Anime and manga MoS which keeps adaptations together unless they are significantly different. Neither of the Bleach film articles show that they need stand alone articles right now. Having separate articles just to have long plot summaries is not a valid reason to keep them. The film and TV projects have different guidelines, so the example given doesn't apply. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit my ignorance of the anime and manga MoS. However, I think #2 is applicable. This article as it stands now is long enough. WP:SPINOUT says that when an article hits 60 KB, that it should probably be split. It's at 50 KB right now. And we're talking about merging in a 10 KB article, an 8 KB article and a 4 KB article. Even with liberal cuts it's going to push it close to or over 60 KB. --Smashville^BONK! 16:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We would hardly be sweating at 60 kb. In any case, the first movie is alright in terms of having its own article: [1], [2]. I'm sure more exists as it's an English film now, but that should be sufficient for now. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock Musical Bleach

This musical does not seem to be very notable at all, and the entire article is unsourced and rather rambling in nature. I think all relevant, sourcable information can more easily and concisely be covered in the main article. The CD soundtracks can be covered in the main soundtrack area with the rest. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that the reason we cover both the manga and anime in one article is to reduce the need for duplication. We can have articles covering the manga and anime separately, but we chose not to because most times, we would have near duplicate plot summaries and character profiles. However, I don't see how that is a problem with any of the articles above and that this is simply merging for the sake of merging the articles. --Farix (Talk) 17:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the movies as being duplication as well. The characters are all the same. They are just long episodes. We also don't make full articles on less notable aspects of a series. We don't make one for every artbook, for example, or less notable films. I don't see how the musical is notable enough for its own article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The musical, like the movies, is a separate production. To be quite frank, your reasoning is stupid. The Iron Man TV series uses characters from the comics. Should we merge it? Hulk series, Fantastic Four, etc? Normally I'm fairly supportive of merging where it has a point, but this has none. As Farix said, it's just merging for the sake of merging, with no thought given to why these things would deserve their own articles. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Gee, nice to see you respond so politely. It is not merging for the sake of merging. It is in keeping with the guidelines. Your example is a beyond ludicrous red herring. A more appropriate example would look at other anime articles that have film and or OVA adaptations, and whether those are all individual articles. Most of the time they are not, as is in keeping with WP:MOS-AM. If you disagree and feel the musical can stand on its own, why not go fix its article (which is horrible) and add in the sources showing it has the significant coverage you claim it has to show its notability. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous proposal. It had to be noted. It's one thing to merge an OVA, which is little more than a direct to DVD movie in most cases. Here you are trying to merge theatrical releases which have reception info for their country of origin. There is no reason or point in merging them, and there is no question that a theatrical release is notable. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't. Rock Musical isn't a theatrical release, its a musical with what appears to be a limited release and no significant coverage anywhere. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The comment was generalized, but even the Rock Musical is notable. Shouldn't be that hard to track down sources. A simple google search reveals that you can buy the musical on Amazon. Just because it is badly written is not a reason for merging, it's a reason for cleanup. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can but one of its soundtracks from Amazon, which is in fact Amazon's standard import option. Can't not the musical. The other soundtrack listing isn't even being sold by Amazon, but by a single marketplace seller. And neither confers notability on a product. That's like saying you found a book at Wal-mart and it is now notable because it was there. Existance alone does not equal notability. The musical isn't licensed, and again, still waiting for actual, reliable sources showing notability. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Only demonstrating that it can be bought, not that being bought makes it notable. Nevertheless, reviews are liable to exist, and on the official site you can find a number of interview-related blog posts, which is useful production info. Tracking such things down in Japanese isn't my specialty, but judging it guilty outright just to merge it is jumping the gun. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

General comments

• I see no reason for a merger. The movies, while starring the same characters, have plotlines different from the manga and TV series. It's not like the Escaflowne, RahXephon or X movies, where the plot is a condensed retelling of the original.

• Like Penguin said, the musical is a separate production. The short section in this article pointing to the main article on the musical is in line with the Summary style guideline.

• Furthermore, if one were to merge the three (whole) articles here, the article size would surpass 60KB, big enough to seriously consider WP:SPLITTING. Not to mention the fact that the article would be biased towards the numerous adaptations, when the focus should be on the main work.--Nohansen (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, size is size, but will the articles provide notability? *sigh* Are there any chances that Bleach: The DiamondDust Rebellion (for example) can be ever made good article? --deerstop (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Talk page has a link to a booklet full of info that can be used for production. Memroies of Nobody is coming out in English soon. Yes, they can be made into good articles. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  It already is out in English/the United States. --Smashville^BONK! 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, so it is. Even in a limited theatrical release then, there should be some reviews. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth setting?

Currently it lists the real world, soul society, and hueco mundo. I think there is a separate one though. It is the 'Valley of Screams' referenced in Bleach: Memories of Nobody. If this is considered as canon (and it doesn't interfere with the manga so it probably should) that would be a fourth dimension. This dimension may be related to the area they travel through when going back and forth between Earth and Soul Society. It is similarly dark. It is seen when they initially invade Soul Society, when Inoue is ambushed by Ulquiorra on the return, and also with the new captain arc that is recently airing in the anime when he defeats the guardian. This may be considered a fifth setting though, since I think the Valley of Screams is more like a slightly separate dimension than these tunnels, or possibly contained within it, or possibly the tunnels are within the Valley of Screams. It's hard to tell, since both are supposed to lie between earth and soul society. Tyciol (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a notable setting. The idea isn't to list/discuss every last setting. Valley of Screams appears only in the movie, so it isn't something to mention here. Its basically the same as them going to visit a place in an episode. We'd mention it in the ep summary, but not anywhere else. Also, your creation of a ton of "Valley of Screams" redirects was completely inappropriate, excessive, and totally unnecessary. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

it isnt related to the inbetween dimension at all. thats why it needs to be explained in the movie, because they never heard of it before. Also the new captain arc is filler, it doesnt relate to the manga, or series in anyway besides the obvious. besides there is already a fourth setting that hasnt been visited yet, but is told to exist.Diablo11d (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)